b Specify that the first stage of any age determination process must be a perusal of all official documentation relating to the accused’s age and identity. Where documentation has been issued which corroborates the accused person’s own account of their age at the time of the commission of an alleged offence, a strong presumption of correctness should attach to this documentation. c Clarify that in cases where there doubt remains following the perusal of government issued documents, or where there is conflict between government issued documents, a full psycho-social investigation involving examination of relevant witnesses must be conducted. Relevant witnesses should be taken to include, inter alia, the accused, his family, anyone present at the time of his birth such as doctors or midwives, teachers, and other members of his local community. d Clearly set out the fact that medical evidence relating to the age of the accused person is often inconclusive and cannot be relied upon over and above documentary evidence or a full psycho-social investigation. e Ensure that where, following an age determination process which incorporates the steps set out above, any reasonable doubt remains as to the age of the accused, such doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person and the court must determine that the person should be treated as a juvenile in conflict with the law. f Ensure that an age determination assessment is conducted at whatever stage of proceedings the issue of juvenility is raised, even after the exhaustion of ordinary appellate proceedings. In any case where prima facie evidence of juvenility is presented a full judicial inquiry must immediately be conducted in accordance with these protocols. If, following such an inquiry, the court determines that the accused is entitled to be treated as a juvenile in conflict with the law, then a death sentence, if previously awarded, must be converted to life imprisonment. Where appropriate, a re-trial may be ordered and such trial should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the juvenile justice system. C A D M I T P O S T- C O N V I C T I O N R E V I E W S O N T H E B A S I S O F NEW EVIDENCE Whilst the Government of Pakistan has alleged in its initial reports under the ICCPR, that the Superior Courts hold the power to admit post-conviction reviews on the basis of exonerating evidence regarding innocence or juvenility, the Courts have repeatedly refused to reopen these proceedings on account of their being out of time. The Government of Pakistan needs to ensure that an institutional remedy – executive or judicial – available for accused persons in whose cases new evidence that could serve as a basis to mitigate his sentence is discovered. D P U B L I S H DATA O N J U V E N I L E S O N D E AT H ROW The Government of Pakistan should collect and make publically available the total number of death row prisoners who were sentenced for crimes they alleged to have committed when they were below the age of 18 years. This number should also include prisoners who raised a plea of juvenility that was subsequently rejected. DEATH ROW’S CHILDREN 36